JUDGMENT
D.C. Dalela, J.
1. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the award of the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kishangarh (Ajmer), (for short ‘the Tribunal’) is excessive and the amount of the compensation awarded requires to be reduced.
2. No other point has been urged and pressed before me.
3. It is alleged that on 25.3.1994 the claimant-respondent No. 1 was travelling in the truck No. HNG 1551 along with his sheep and goats. Driver of the said truck was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and consequently, the truck collided with another truck No. RJY 4471. In this accident, left hand of the claimant was cut off and separated from the body. The claimant, thus, suffered a permanent disablement apart from pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life. The learned Tribunal after receiving the evidence and hearing both the sides, awarded a total compensation of Rs. 3,78,000. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, this amount is excessive and requires to be reduced.
4. Upon considering the oral submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellant and the perusal of the judgment and award of the learned Tribunal, I find myself broadly in agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Tribunal that the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle in question.
5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., 1995 ACJ 366 (SC), has laid down as under:
Broadly speaking, while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far as non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters, i.e., on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e., on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life.
6. In this case the Hon’ble Supreme Court has awarded non-pecuniary special damages of Rs. 3,00,000. In the case of Dr. Gop Ramchandani v. Onkar Singh, 1993 ACJ 577 (Rajasthan), this Court has awarded compensation of Rs. 3,00,000 on account of non-pecuniary special damages, when there was 50 per cent permanent disablement and therein there was amputation of one leg. Here, in the present case in hand, one left hand of the claimant-respondent was cut off in the accident and, obviously there is 50 per cent permanent disablement and there was a sort of amputation of one hand. Therefore, on the analogy basis of the decision in the case of Dr. Gop Ramchandani (supra), the claimant-respondent is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 3,00,000 on account of non-pecuniary special damages.
7. So far as the pecuniary damages in connection with the medical treatment, etc., are concerned, the learned Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 5,563.45 which may be rounded up as Rs. 5,600. This amount is correct and in my opinion, the claimant-respondent is entitled to pecuniary damages of Rs. 5,600 and non-pecuniary special damages of Rs. 3,00,000. The total amount of compensation which the claimant-respondent is entitled to comes to Rs. 3,05,600. This amount, in my opinion is quite reasonable and adequate in view of the principle laid down in Dr. Gop Ramchandani’s case, 1993 ACJ 577 (Rajasthan), by this Court and in R.D. Hattangadi’s case, 1995 ACJ 366 (SC), by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The total compensation of Rs. 3,78,000 awarded by the learned Tribunal is, therefore, required to be reduced to Rs. 3,05,600.
8. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed. The total amount of compensation is reduced to Rs. 3,05,600 from a total compensation of Rs. 3,78,000 as awarded by the learned Tribunal. To this extent, the award of the learned Tribunal shall stand modified. Other part, terms and conditions of the award are maintained.